Donuts, the Customs-Immigration Service (CIS), and Commercial Liens

Donuts, the Customs-Immigration Service (CIS), and Commercial Liens

(My First Two Serious Adverse Encounters with DHS-CIS)

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

August 11, 2014; Reposted January 30, 2015

Maxim of Law: An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.”

First incident:

My first very serious adverse encounter with DHS-CIS started with a JOKE. I admit it: I joke around a LOT !!! It is just my nature. Prior to 2008 I had never had any serious problems re-entering the U.S. – only the occasional luggage searches and brief interrogations. Then on December 28, 2008 the first very serious incident occurred at Boston’s Logan Airport (on return flights from Odessa, Ukraine via Kiev and Amsterdam) I was waiting in line for the “passport check” (usually called “Passport Control” in most other countries), where they ask all manner of stupid questions. Several flights from abroad must have arrived within a short space of time, so the immense room was jammed full of travelers (certainly in excess of a thousand) slowly shuffling along through a maze of those winding, roped off lines so often seen in large airports. As is my custom, I spoke with some people waiting in line nearby, wondering aloud if we would receive a piece of cheese as a reward after successfully navigating through this maze. I waited and waited and waited. Finally, there was only ONE guy left in front of me. He answered the custom officer’s questions dutifully, but then they began chatting about where the BEST DONUTS could be found in Kittery, Maine. (I used to vacation at a friend’s summer home in Kittery, so I was rather amused at first.) But their conversation went on and on… about the Kittery Trading Post … the old-fashioned candy shop, etc.

Finally it was my turn. The CIS officer looked at my passport, then asked the usual “Where ya been…etc.” questions. I answered his initial questions very politely, but then just couldn’t resist adding, “And yes, I have been to Kittery, but I don’t eat donuts.”

DONUTS__Dunkin_Donuts____PHOTODONUTS__Happy_Cop_w_Donuts____CARTOON

 

Out came his red felt pen – something I would fear seeing in the future. He wrote something on my “customs declaration form”, then told me to move on. Downstairs at the baggage claim, I retrieved my luggage, then spotted 2 armed officers briskly walking toward me. They told me I had to go with them; and I was escorted by them and 2 other armed officers into an interview room.

To make a long story short, I was questioned, threatened with arrest, insulted with extremely vulgar accusations (e.g., being a child rapist, child pornographer, drug dealer, etc.), insisted that I was “mentally disturbed” and might have me committed to a psychiatric hospital, and screamed at for over 6 hours by 4 armed men in this tiny room. My baggage, computer, mobile phone and everything else were torn apart and examined. Citing my “right to remain silent” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, I was repeatedly told that I was “officially NOT in the U.S. and therefore had NO rights”! I responded that if we were not in the U.S., then they had NO authority to detain me, search me and my belongings, or question me. I refused to answer any of their questions and repeatedly demanded to phone my lawyer. Finally, after 6 hours they let me go. I was extremely angry, but also exhausted by the incident. At that time my primary concern was simply getting home.

DONUTS__Happy_Cop_w_Donuts____PHOTO DONUTS__Armed_DHS_Thugs____PHOTO

 

Second incident:

One night in July 7, 2009 the second very serious incident occurred. I again arrived at Logan Airport in Boston, MA from Kiev, Ukraine (via Paris’ CDG airport) after having visited my fiancée of 3 years and her son to celebrate my birthday. (We try to celebrate all of our birthdays together.)

At Passport Control, I answered every question the Customs officers asked of me, including the reasons for my visit. When he asked how much money I had with me, I answered that I did not know the exact amount, since it was in currencies of several different countries, but it was “most certainly not even close to the $10,000 limit”. (Only a very limited number of places in the Ukraine take credit cards. Except for major tourist businesses, it is essentially a cash-based society; and by law all cash transactions must take place using the Ukrainian currency. In major shopping malls, restaurants and even supermarkets, ATM’s and currency-exchange booths are abundantly located to convert credit/debit cards and foreign currencies into Ukrainian currency. On this trip ALL of my transactions were in cash – U.S. dollars, Ukrainian UAH and Euros. Further, as any frequent traveler knows, one ALWAYS loses money in any currency exchange, especially converting a foreign currency back into U.S. dollars. Therefore, it makes far more sense simply too keep the foreign currency for later use.) In any event, the Customs officer brusquely told me to give him a specific amount in dollars, to which I replied that I could give him only an estimate of about $2,000-3,000.  He marked my Customs Declaration form with a red felt pen and told me to proceed.

Downstairs after claiming my checked bag, I looked over to the second Customs check line. A Customs officer RAN over to me (literally ran!), told me I had been “randomly selected” and escorted me to another Customs officer for inspection of me and my baggage. We remained at regular inspection station, with its X-ray scanner, where everyone’s baggage is examined, thus avoiding the dreaded “interview room” – I was interrogated by 2 CIS officers in front of other arriving passengers. Not wanting to be there all night, I answered every RELEVANT question asked by the 2 CIS officers, while 4 other armed CIS officers surrounded us. (But I refused to answer all irrelevant questions.) Why did I travel to the Ukraine so often? How could I afford it? Why go there for only 6 days this trip? After inspecting some old flight “tickets” still in my briefcase, why did I travel sometimes to only Kiev and other times to Odessa? I explained that on this trip my fiancée and I had met in Kiev due to time constraints: it would save me 2 days of travel time (i.e., sitting around in airports), plus allow us to look around Kiev. The inspection of my bags was also very thorough, including removal of the linings of luggage. Computer CD’s containing photos of the trip, 2 computer games, 2 English-Russian language CD’s by Rosetta Stone, and a few music CD’s were taken and examined, as were my cell phone and camera. (I repeatedly explained that, since my fiancée had taken her computer with her, I chose not to take mine.)  Every item in my possession was repeatedly examined. I was questioned in detail about 2 English-Russian dictionaries. Had I traveled to Russia? I finally convinced them that most Ukrainians spoke Russian rather than Ukrainian; that Ukraine had been part of the old Soviet Union and for centuries before that, a part of Russia; that Russian and Ukrainian languages were quite different; and my fiancée spoke only Russian and some English (and only her son spoke Ukrainian fluently from his schooling). The 2 Customs officers were demanding, but polite. After approximately 5 hours, the 4 armed CIS officers left the scene. I was allowed pack my bags and leave. As I began walking away the primary Customs officer wished me a “Happy Birthday”. The second Customs officer then asked me in a surprised tone, “Is it your birthday?” I said, “Yes, that is why I went over there. I told you folks that several times. But I was ‘randomly chosen’, right?” The second officer then said to the first officer [exact quote], “We did this to him on his BIRTHDAY? What BULLSHIT ! !” I turned around, smiled and waved “good-bye” to them, then walked out.

I filed a formal complaint through my lawyer with Janet Napolitano (then Secretary of Homeland Security), DHS-CIS, and finally with DHS-TRIP, but their replies were total bullshit. He suggested we sue DHS, but warned that it would be a very expensive and lengthy process with little hope of success. Instead, I chose another tactic. I wrote and mailed sworn affidavits detailing the events and infringements on my rights (my “claims”) to each of the six (6) men involved in their private capacity; NOT as agents or officers of the DHS-CIS. Not one of the six men answered with any type of rebuttal – which is precisely what I had hoped for. At various time intervals over the next 3 months I mailed them additional documents, again receiving no responses. By these actions I had created commercial liens on all the assets of each of the six men in the amount of $40 million U.S. dollars per man – a total of $240 million. The entire process took about three (3) months, and approximately 30 hours of research, writing, going to the post office, etc. In essence, I had “frozen” all of their assets (e.g., houses, cars, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, other investments and whatever) for the next 99 years; so they could neither sell them nor use them as collateral for any loans. I next registered these commercial liens with the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), which legally converted each of these 6 commercial liens into “negotiable instruments” (similar to a bond or stock) which I could sell to anyone – even to a Wall Street investment bank. Had I then created a legal Trust, then placed these liens into that Trust, the 99 year expiration date would have been extended to “forever” – that is, NO expiration date. (I could have instituted legal proceedings for the seizure (“levy”) of their assets, but that is a complex and difficult process that I would leave to someone else with the time and money.) The harassment continued on my returns to U.S. airports for few months, but was much milder until it suddenly stopped completely. All of their attempts to void these liens through the courts were unsuccessful. I finally lifted the liens about 3 years after the original incidents, but only after receiving written apologies from all 6 men (CIS officers), their supervisors and the Director of DHS-CIS.

It was about then that I decided that the U.S. was NO LONGER the same country in which I was born and raised. And I knew it would only get worse! So a few months later in 2009 I left America permanently. I was already permanently living outside the U.S. when the liens were voided by me.

From what I have read about events in the U.S. since then, it sounds like my decision was warranted.

And it all started with a JOKE. Go figure …

 True story!

P.S. By the way, I still do NOT like donuts!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTES:

1.) The first question readers might ask, aside from whether this story is total bullshit, is how I recall the details of these events after 8 years. First, anticipating my lawyer’s wishes, the day after the first incident I wrote down everything I could recall about the incident in the airport the preceding evening and night. I then presented to my lawyer, who had it typed up as an affidavit, signed by me and two witnesses and then notarized by him – which he then filed in his office records. On a subsequent flights back into the U.S., I made audio recordings (the recorder easy visible in my shirt pocket) of all my conversations with CIS personnel until I had exited the airport. These recordings were then typed up into affidavits, duly signed, witnessed and notarized. These documents provided the detailed information we used in my in my formal complaints to Janet Napolitano, CIS, DHA and finally DHS-TRIP. I still possess copies of those affidavits and transcripts of the audio recordings, as well as the formal complaints sent to the above federal officials and agencies. These documents were meant to be used by my lawyer in filing a civil suit. It was not until later when I was researching and creating the commercial liens that I discovered how essential they were to me, especially if the 6 men responded with affidavits of rebuttal. Under the ancient maximum of law, “Claims made without accountability are void.” (In order to have any credibility, the claimant must put himself at risk by assuming full and unlimited commercial liability for any claims proved to be false. In fact, in the Common Law and Commercial Law (as opposed to statutory law as legislated acts), the more one places himself at risk in any claim, the greater the presumption that his claim is truthful.) In other words, should these 6 men be able to refute my claims by their sworn affidavits, backed up by affidavits from other witnesses and such evidence as airport audio and/or video tapes, I would be financially “screwed” for life.

2.) About the “Commercial Lien Process”

The process of initiating a commercial lien begins with writing an affidavit of truth, signed under oath, in which you (the “affiant”) make a “claim” by stating the facts of an incident(s) and describe how you were injured (your charges) by the actions of another man or woman (the “accused”). The commercial lien process requires NO court action or judge’s approval.

In fact, the Commercial Affidavit Process (CAP) is a totally private contract matter. CAP is a pre-common law process. It is also referred to as a “commercial law process,” not to be confused with the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) and other statutes, rules and regulations. It is a pre-common law process because until there is a disagreement, there is no dispute. All that is being done is the establishment of claims and obligations. The purpose of the CAP is to make claims and determine if the accused agrees or not. If the Accused does not contest the claims, there is no dispute to be adjudicated; thus the appropriate damages are consensually agreed-upon. Thus it is pre-judicial. It may also be completely non-judicial if it is properly (composed of unrebuttable truth) and successfully implemented.

The Commercial Affidavit Process (CAP) places the full power of justice back in the hands of the common man. It cannot be overstated that the whole Commercial Affidavit Process is not dependent on the court system. It functions quite well on its own OUTSIDE the current legal system.

Although the government court system MAY have an essential part to play once the Commercial Affidavit has been served AND ANSWERED (rebutted point-by-point in a sworn affidavit by the accused), that government court system is not and cannot be invoked until the charges in the affidavit have been answered by sworn affidavit with a point-by-point rebuttal. A disagreement could arise only from such a rebuttal by the accused.  Until that point, THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT TO ADJUDICATE. Thus, it remains a totally private matter. A failure to rebut via affidavit is acquiescence: a contractual agreement that the affiant’s original affidavit was truthful and has been accepted by the accused as a contract under Commercial Law.  The subsequent failure by the accused to answer the affiant’s claims for damages then leads to a “default judgment” for the affiant as far the law is concerned, the matter is settled and can NOT be revisited by either the affiant or the accused.. It is a private contract which neither party has disputed within a timely manner; and, without any dispute, the courts have no jurisdiction of any kind.

In short, if the accused issues no affidavit of rebuttal, he agrees with the affiant’s affidavit (acquiescence – even by silence), and the affiant wins automatically. If the accused fails to respond within a stated time period (let’s say 14 days) to the affiant’s sworn Affidavit of truth by means of his own sworn affidavit in which he rebuts each of the affiant’s claims point-by-point, then the accused has in law agreed with the affiant’s claims by default and is liable for the damages claimed by the affiant. Maxim of Law: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.” Therefore, by the accused NOT rebutting point-by-point in his own sworn affidavit each claim of the affiant, under the ancient Laws of Commerce the accused has ALREADY agreed that the affiant’s claims are the truth. At that point, the NO court can intervene, since there is NO disagreement to adjudicate.

Applicable MAXIMS of law are:

A man may not with impunity infringe upon another man’s rights.

A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.

(This is the reason that under the Common Law in America and guaranteed by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, NO arrest or search warrant can be issued unless a signed affidavit sworn as the truth under oath (a contract), along with some objective evidence of a crime (“probable cause”) is submitted to a court, after which a judge, also acting under oath, may issue the warrant with his signature. As agents of the government, both the police officer and the judge are protected from civil suits by “limited commercial immunity” granted by statutes and thereby relieved of “full and unlimited commercial liability” by the commercial bonds purchased on their behalf by the government. However, this limited immunity is valid only as long as they did not exceed the powers of office lawfully granted to them.)

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.

An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth.

“He, who does not object, consents.”

Truth stands supreme.

Claims made without accountability are void. (The claimant must put himself at risk by assuming full and unlimited commercial liability for any claims proved to be false.)

In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation.”

“There is no stronger bond between men than an oath.”

“They are perjured, who, preserving the words of an oath, deceive the ears of those who receive it.”

“An oath is a contract in law.”

“An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Law.”

While the battle continues, he who first leaves the field or refuses to contend loses by default. (The man who quits first loses; the last-man-standing wins.)

and most importantly

All are equal under the Law. (judges, police, etc. as MEN have NO extra rights)

Like the police, these six CIS officers (as federal agents) are granted by U.S. statutes “limited immunity” from civil suits in government, public courts when “in performance of their official duties”. What most police and, obviously these six men, failed to realize is that the Commercial Affidavit Process is a pre-judicial process; it is a private contract between men in their private capacities under complete and unlimited commercial liabilityby all parties involved – NOT in their capacities as officers of government with “limited immunity”. It depends on NO statutes and does NOT involve any court. In a “nutshell”, I made a “claim” by written, sworn affidavits against each of these 6 men in their private capacities in which I detailed the harm caused to me by them and the damages (reparations) I sought from each man to “make me whole”. I offered them a CONTRACT via sworn affidavit and by NOT responding to my “offer to contract” they fell into “dishonor” AND thereby unwittingly accepted my contract AND agreed to all the claims within my affidavit as the truth in law.

It needs to be thoroughly understood that because it is driven by SWORN TRUTH, the Commercial Affidavit Process (CAP) is outside the jurisdiction of any equity court. It is a private contract matter. Should an attempt be made by anyone, including a judge or anyone else, to involve an equity court it would result in a trespass against the Affiant’s rights. Consequently, those interfering individuals who were unlawfully trying to insert themselves into the controversy, could easily be added as additional “lien debtors” to the 6 commercial liens and their assets “frozen” as well – simply by adding their names and a brief description of their interference on the back of each lien .An equity court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, for the CAP is strictly a non-judicial or pre-judicial process between individuals and is private. It should also be emphasized that this process is not to be undertaken lightly. Under the maxim “Claims made without accountability are void.”  (The claimant must put himself at risk by assuming full and unlimited commercial liability for any claims),  I have taken a great risk should my claims be proved false.

One should NOT hire an attorney (whose primary duty is to the court, since he is an “officer of the court”.) By NOT hiring an attorney, you avoid becoming a “client” (by definition, a “ward of the court” by reason of “mental incompetence”), The commercial lien, which is authorized both by the Common Law and by Title 15 of the United States Code (USC); and is similar to the lien the IRS uses to take Americans’ homes, cars, savings, etc. However, instead of depending on Title 15 (which would grant the government courts some jurisdiction over the case), one should base your commercial lien process solely upon the Common Law of negotiable instruments (a.k.a. Commercial Law or Law of Commerce). And since NO attorney is allowed to speak in a Common Law court (except as a witness with direct, personal knowledge of events), the hiring of an attorney would be a waste of money. (It is completely unrelated to the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.))

Since CAP is strictly a non-judicial or pre-judicial process between individuals and is PRIVATE, it’s almost impossible to remove a commercial lien without the approval of the individual claimant who filed the lien. Although a commercial lien can be challenged by a Common Law court or by a 7th Amendment trial by jury in a court operating under the Common Law (a true “court of record”, meaning statutes and regulations do NOT apply), it does not require a court process or a court judgment for its establishment, validity, or execution. Therefore, the courts can NOT simply extinguish this lien on their own discretion (or on motion from the lien debtors) without the voluntary approval of the person who filed the lien.

(7th Amendment: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”)

Traditionally, these liens can only be removed by (1) the voluntary decision of the person who filed the lien, (2) by the decision of a constitutional Common Law trial by jury (a true “Court of Record”), or (3) by waiting 99 or 100 years. Since the Common Law has been smothered in the U.S.A., almost all judges are essentially powerless to overcome the commercial liens since they have no knowledge of the procedures of a Common Law court (a true “court of record”). Further, in a Common Law court the “judge” can act ONLY as an administrator of the proceedings; he can NOT act as the “tribunal” under any circumstances. ONLY the “tribunal” (the plaintiff/affiant or the 12-man jury, if requested by the accused) can issue any orders, issue contempt citations, render verdicts, or make any other decisions for the court. If the “judge” exceeds his authority as the administrator (for example, by issuing any order or rendering a verdict, the “tribunal” may void that order or verdict by simply issuing an order voiding the judge’s order. If the judge persists in such actions, the tribunal may issue a “contempt of court” order against him and order his arrest and/or a fine. And anyone (such a police officer, the “judge”, court bailiff, sheriff or anyone else who obstructs the “contempt of court” order can be added as one of the “accused” on the commercial lien – and even prosecuted in a Common Law court.

Now, it was extremely unlikely that I would ever collect the $40 million judgment (to which they had agreed simply by their non-responses to my initial affidavits) from each of these six men. However, simply by filing these liens with a county clerk’s office, registering these liens with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and by placing notices to the public in a few newspapers (and keeping evidence of these such public notices), I had converted these 6 liens into “negotiable instruments” (like stocks or bonds) which I then could have sold for cash to anyone, including investment companies (as on Wall Street), banks, insurance companies, and so on

What would have happened if I had sold the six commercial liens to an investment bank, insurance company or whatever? Since the commercial liens (registered with the SEC) were $20 million per man, the total amounted to $240 million. Now, if I approached a broker from an investment bank and asked him to sell these liens on my behalf, he would certainly NOT quote me a price of $240 million. Because of the high risk involved regarding the eventual recovery of this $240 million, he would likely offer between 1-3 percent maximum of the nominal value, that is, between $2.4 million and $7.2 million maximum in cash. (And since it was an award or reparation for damages“to make one whole” – that money paid to me would NOT be subject to taxes.) That is a LOT of money! That investor might then re-sell the liens for a greater amount OR, more likely, use it as collateral for loans which with to make other investments, thereby leveraging this $240 million commercial lien (as it very common among large investment banks today, at a 20 to 1 ratio) into $4,800 million (i.e., $4.8 billion). Because of this fact, it would be more lucrative for any investment bank NOT to go to court in an attempt to levy the $240 million from these six men! (Now you know why the investment bankers on Wall Street are so filthy rich!)

Thus, the personal assets of the six men would remain “frozen” for the next 99 years. Now, had I been the vindictive type and actually sought to have someone make a REAL attempt to collect the $240 million from the six men, among my options would be to donate the liens to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Since the IRS is forbidden by U.S statutes from “hypothecating” such liens and, as we all know, is famous (or infamous) for its ability and experience in seizing the assets of people, it certainly would have attempted to seize all the assets of these six men. And had these six men attempted to stop such seizures using the courts, under Commercial Law and U.S. statutes, the men had ALREADY agreed to and admitted that they owed the $240 million. Case closed. Assets seized.

+++++++++++++++ END +++++++++++++++

3.) Sources of information:

There are numerous articles and books, many available for free on the Internet, explaining the Commercial Affidavit Process (CAP) and Commercial Lien Process. As a non-attorney, that is how I taught myself the theory and procedures; and used so many sources that I will mention only a few. I did NOT use an attorney.

See my essay below on this blog below titled, “COMMERCIAL LIENS: The MOST POTENT WEAPON by Alfred Adask et al 1995

Another good article comes from BILL THORTON (of www.1215.org ) – perhaps the BEST web site regarding the Common Law: 

COMMERCIAL_LIEN__Application_of_COMMERCIAL_LAW___BILL_THORNTON_1215-org

There are also numerous VIDEOS posted on various Internet web sites, including on YouTube.com. Many of these videos are not very informative and/or simply incorrect. Perhaps the best VIDEO explaining the mechanics of the Commercial Lien Process (as applicable in Britain, although the process in America is almost identical) is Commercial Maritime Liens by Simon (aka, “El Spaniardo” or “WhiteRabbitTrust”). I could only locate this video as reposted by “John Smith” using the title, “Commercial Liens The Most Potent Commercial Weapon”, so I presume El Spaniardo’s previous postings were deleted. The video is currently available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJnEDT3jsI8

Another source of information on Commercial Liens (as well as the Common Law in general) are the video interviews of Karl Lentz, specificallyKarl Lentz 59 – Commercial lien process vs. common law processavailable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8T5WQwS0M However, I have found Mr. Lentz rather vague and far less organized in his presentations than El Spaniardo (aka, Simon and WhiteRabbitTrust)

 +++++++++++++++++++++ End of Essay +++++++++++++++++++++

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Michael59 · ·

    aww, priceless.

    1. The fact that it all started by my telling a JOKE (the people around me laughed), then it shows the ARROGANCE and ARBITRARY ABUSE OF POWER of the Customs and Immigration Service (CIS) personnel.

%d bloggers like this: